Share this story

You wouldn't think the precise, virtual location of a few bits of additional, purchasable content for a game would be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. But some gamers are up in arms yet again over the prospect that some downloadable content (DLC) for the recently released Resident Evil 6 is already included as locked, encrypted data on the game disc itself.

The furor started earlier this week, when an enterprising hacker posted evidence to YouTube that Resident Evil 6 discs contained data for DLC including new attacks, multiplayer taunts, and a "No Hope" difficulty level. Capcom was vague about this hidden content at first, telling Eurogamer that some future DLC would use a combination of downloaded and on-disc content for "technical reasons." Then the company announced today that all the content on the disc would be available for free—either through a downloadable title update or by registering at ResidentEvil.com—and that any future DLC was not already on the disc.

This isn't the first time Capcom has drawn ire for having the nerve to lock some on-disc content behind a paywall. The console versions of Street Fighter x Tekken included data for 12 characters that were sold later as a $20 DLC pack. Games like Dragon's Dogma and Resident Evil 5 included locked, purchasable content on the disc itself, too. Capcom isn't even alone in the practice: Epic's Gears of War 3, DICE's Battlefield Bad Company 2, and Bioware's Mass Effect 3 all required players to purchase unlock codes for content that was included on the launch-day retail discs.

This one issue causes a somewhat comical amount of frustration for a small segment of vocal gamers. They fill up comment threads and messages boards with outrage at the injustice of it all. Kotaku commenter TreyTable summed up the level of vitriol nicely when he described his reaction to on-disc DLC: "The best way to fight this trend is to put a company out of business, even Capcom. That's how one can fight this bullshit." Another commenter MarkoPolos put it more bluntly: "How about fuck Capcom?" But the most common complaints about on-disc DLC start to break down when you take a closer look at them.

"But I'm holding it in my hand!"

One of the easiest complaints to dismiss surrounding on-disc DLC focuses on the idea of ownership. Because this DLC content exists on a disc that you own, some say, you should have the right to play it or do whatever else you want with it.

There's a decent hardware-hacker ethos to this idea of digital content ownership, but I don't think it really passes the smell test. Regardless of whether the extra content sits on a disc or on a server somewhere, the developer obviously didn't intend for it to be included in the base price that you paid for the retail disc. Just because you physically "own" the encrypted files that represent the content doesn't give you any more legal or moral right to play it than someone who downloaded a pirated copy of the game.

It's like arguing that you should be able to play a pre-loaded Steam game before the release date, or that you should be able to play the full version of a PSN game demo without paying to download the 6KB unlock file, simply because you physically control the game files that are sitting on your computer or console. Possession is not 9/10ths of the law here.

"They just want more money!"

A somewhat more legitimate concern is the idea that developers might intentionally transform content that would otherwise be part of the core game into on-disc DLC. It's a method of nickel-and-diming consumers for features that, by all rights, should be included with their purchase. But basic economics pokes a hole in this conspiracy theory. To see why, imagine a game developer decided to release an entire game as on-disc DLC. You can buy the disc from a store, but it's completely useless unless you buy unlock codes for various bits and pieces online once you get home. How much would you be willing to pay for such a game?

I'm guessing most of you answered $0, which means that such a game might work as a free-to-play title, but not as a full-priced retail release (then again, people do pay hundreds of dollars for game consoles just for the opportunity to buy the games themselves as "additional content"). Like with anything, the base game you're buying still has to be worth the purchase price before you pay extra for DLC (on-disc or not).

This idea works even in less extreme examples, where the developer hides half of the on-disc content behind a paywall, for instance. If the non-DLC half of the disc isn't worth the asking price, then people aren't going to buy the game (and, consequently, won't even be in the market for extra DLC). If the non-DLC part of the disc is worth the asking price, then the developer didn't really ruin the value proposition at all, and is just charging what the market will bear (this is also the best argument in favor of controversial schemes like EA's Project $10). "Worth the price" is going to vary from consumer to consumer, but market forces won't allow a developer to simply hack a game into tons of tiny, DLC bits and still charge full price for it.

In fact, there's evidence that too much content-withholding doesn't pay off for the producer even if it lowers the base game's asking price. Publisher THQ tried that with last year's MX vs. ATV Alive, selling the relatively bare-bones base game for $40 in order to attract more customers for potentially lucrative DLC. The result: sales for the base game were disappointing, and THQ later said it was "not a successful experiment." The lesson is that a game still needs to be worth the money you're paying for it, regardless of what DLC is on the disc.

"They should work on the main game first!"

The most compelling argument against on-disc DLC is the concern that the practice takes away development resources that should have been put toward the base game instead of the extra content. If the developer had spent less time and manpower working on that DLC, the argument goes, then it could have released the core game sooner, or at least made the base game much better in the same amount of time. DLC is fine, the naysayers argue, but developers should only worry about it after the core game is complete and out the door (this argument also applies to many games with "day one" DLC that isn't included on the disc).

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling many different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Sometimes developers are forced to sit idle while they wait for key content from other groups, and they use their found time trying to get a jump on future DLC. Other times, downloadable content might be handled by an extra, unconnected team that is working in parallel with the team working on the core game. In a world where developers weren't allowed to work on DLC until the primary game was complete, the company would probably just reduce costs by relying on a smaller staff until the game shipped, then repurposing those same employees for DLC afterwards. This fan-made illustration gives a good rundown of why early DLC isn't ruining game development schedules.

And just because DLC isn't included on the disc (or available on launch day) doesn't mean it wasn't developed alongside the main game. Borderlands 2 didn't have any DLC available when it was released last month, but a downloadable Mechromancer character class was made available earlier this week, and a "Pirate's Booty" DLC mission pack will be available October 16. It's highly unlikely that Gearbox put all this content together in the month or so since the game's first release. But I have yet to hear any fan outcry that working on this extra content took away from the core development of the game (perhaps because Gearbox has some plausible deniability in the matter).

[UPDATE: Gearbox PR Manager Adam Fletcher tweeted at me last night to clarify that all work on Borderlands 2 DLC started after the main game went to certification in July, which just goes to show that development schedules aren't always as clear cut as they seem.]

So let's all settle down. Just because a portion of a game disc is locked away as DLC doesn't mean you're getting ripped off. Both games and DLC are still value propositions that have to be judged on their own merits, regardless of whether they're available on disc from day one or not. You're not entitled to free content just because it's on the disc, or because it's taking away from what "should" have been in the core game. Don't like it? Don't buy it!

Promoted Comments

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

More people on a given piece of a project doesn't mean that piece will go any faster, or with higher quality. You get diminishing returns in that aspect. Eventually you get too many fingers in the same pie and it's just a sticky mess where nothing is getting done.

Plus you have the issue of: should level and character designers be fixing bugs in the code? Should engineers be creating character art? What if the game content is done, but the developers are stuck fixing code bugs in order to ship the game for a month or so (final fit and finish)? What do all the content folks do? Sit and wait?

People in a project that large are not swappable pieces, and you can't assume that I can substitute any one individual for another.

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works.

More importantly, its a old style view of software development in general. Most devs are working on several projects simultaniously. In a large project like a major game release, a dev may own several areas, and usually they have assigned units of time based on estimates to complete each task. Development cycles are broken down into "sprints" typically of two weeks in length. If a dev is blocked completely, often they will 'trade' time on one aspect that is blocked for time on something unrelated that can be done now(and in return, later give the time allocated to the original project). Its called Agile development and over the past decade its slowly become the standard approach.

Furthermore, by shipping the dev content on the disc, it permits the developer to push the QA of that content out to a later date, especially since QA signoff is often the last part of a project release. So while the dev's are twiddling thier thumbs waiting on QA to punt bugs their way or sign off, they can instead be working on post-release content which will not get into the QA cycle, but they can then spend the next month after release putting through QA. That 'small patch' that 'enables' the content is likely to also contain tweaks and fixes for any problems later identified in the untested content.

In other words, most of this is about efficient use of scheduling and dev resources. We don't do the Waterfall model in development anymore, and that is a good thing, but it can also lead to a misunderstanding of how software is being developed since Agile is not a sequential methodology.

Good article. And for the detractors, note that Kyle did *not* claim that DLC content is always worth the money, or that games that do not deliver the value of the initial purchase price are justified. Only that DLC is not always what it appears and despite the speed at which it comes out post release, or the location of many of the assets that does not mean it in some way took away from the initial game development. If it did, I'd seriously question the dev manager and how they were allocating cycles.

Kyle - It might be helpful to at some point see if Ars could run a series of articles on software development, and the change from Waterfall to Agile development models.

There's no moral issues here. Video games aren't a human right or a critical necessity. They're an entertainment option. There's LOTS of other entertainment options.

If your water company tries to screw you over, yeah, get the pitchforks and storm the castle. When EA does it, you stop giving them money, you tell them why, and you find something else to spend your entertainment dollars on. If you're so addicted to a particular franchise that you just can't do without it... seek help, because EA has no obligation to run their business the way you want.

I'm not a fan of DLC either, but the anger and vitriol directed at these companies is excessive. In actual fact, here's what's going to happen: video game companies are going to continue doing DLC as long as it's profitable, no matter how much a vocal minority (and believe me, you are a small minority) complains about it. Especially if you continue giving them your money. Posting online that you'll never buy another game from insert game company here doesn't do any good if you actually continue giving them money.

So if you hate it so much, don't give them money, and tell them why. Directly. Not on Ars. Go to their forums and let your voice be heard. That's the only chance you ever have of convincing them to stop doing it.

On-disc DLC makes sense from a development standpoint, and is not content that "you paid for" that you're not getting. There will be definitely be 'down' time that devs could be working on more content prior to the date you get it in your hot little hands, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's_law etc.

It's also a great way to rip people off by taking bits of your game you would have made part of it if you didn't have this idea and double dipping for them.

How can you tell which it is? I don't think you can. I think you just have to use your brain and work out if you're happy paying the amount of money they're asking for what they're giving you.

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

Or, without the extra profit motive of the DLC, they just would do with fewer developers on that game and save costs, as I argued in the next paragraph.

Paid DLC is a type of cancer and it needs to die. I'm ok with Free DLC, as long as there are not strings attached.

DLC is fine, it's just the majority of it is pretty much crap. I'm fine paying £5-10 for a fairly substantial pack of extra content (not just a few new maps, half of which usually end up being remakes of old ones as happens with CoD) if it expands the story and/or enhances the gameplay in some meaningful way.

Back in my day we used to call DLC "content patches". Developers would fix a bunch of stuff then add more content like extra weapons and maps and the like (obviously things relevant to that game). Anything more substantial would be an addon or expansion pack which would generally cost about a third of the original game and give you about as much extra content in the form of a mini campaign or something.

Right now its largely abused I agree, but the concept of DLC is fine. I just wish they'd have it less often and bundle more of it each release and maybe not charge quite as much. At least if it's more spaced out it gives people more time to save up for it and it doesn't split the community each time something new comes out (i.e., you can't join in if you don't have it) which for MP focused games is absurd.

Mr. Kyle Orland, is Ars seriously paying you to troll your audience like this? Are you seriously getting paid to insult and demean your readers? Do you really expect us to swallow this sort of passive-aggressive 'people who have a problem with on-disc dlc are just whiners' nonsense?

For shame, and more shame on his editor for letting this drivel get posted.

If it enhances the game it should be in the game. If it doesn't then it shouldn't be in the game, not for free, not as artificially forked-off extra-cost DLC.

I'm truly sorry that Ars publishes this. I think of games as art and this view seems to treat games as pure business. I remember the best games in my life as I do the best films or books, and I hate that DLC is now something that comes into being in the very first planning stages.

(How about if "The Scouring of the Shire" was just $5 extra, after you buy your hardcover trilogy?)

Game developers aren't a factory where you schedule DLC in the time between "finishing" and "shipping" (and how can you when the DLC has to be finished to inhabit the same media anyway?)

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

Um, no. At some point, you can't just add more people to work on the same thing.

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

More people on a given piece of a project doesn't mean that piece will go any faster, or with higher quality. You get diminishing returns in that aspect. Eventually you get too many fingers in the same pie and it's just a sticky mess where nothing is getting done.

Plus you have the issue of: should level and character designers be fixing bugs in the code? Should engineers be creating character art? What if the game content is done, but the developers are stuck fixing code bugs in order to ship the game for a month or so (final fit and finish)? What do all the content folks do? Sit and wait?

People in a project that large are not swappable pieces, and you can't assume that I can substitute any one individual for another.

Agreed. People continue to buy these games, and buying is the strongest approval you can get of how a company is operating. If you think a game is only worth $30 because the $10 DLC should be in the game, /wait until the game price comes down to $30/.

"then again, people do pay hundreds of dollars for game consoles just for the opportunity to buy the games themselves as "additional content""

This warped logic just completely made me lose any respect for Kyle Orland. Buying a piece of hardware necessary to play the software is even remotely related to buying a piece of software (being it a digital purchase on one of the console's networks or via DVD) to buy access to the rest of it?

More people on a given piece of a project doesn't mean that piece will go any faster, or with higher quality. You get diminishing returns in that aspect. Eventually you get too many fingers in the same pie and it's just a sticky mess where nothing is getting done.

Plus you have the issue of: should level and character designers be fixing bugs in the code? Should engineers be creating character art? What if the game content is done, but the developers are stuck fixing code bugs in order to ship the game for a month or so (final fit and finish)? What do all the content folks do? Sit and wait?

People in a project that large are not swappable pieces, and you can't assume that I can substitute any one individual for another.

nice post. but i am suspecting people aren't reading the article which is a shame because i doubt they'll take the time with what you wrote as well.

Mr. Kyle Orland, is Ars seriously paying you to troll your audience like this? Are you seriously getting paid to insult and demean your readers? Do you really expect us to swallow this sort of passive-aggressive 'people who have a problem with on-disc dlc are just whiners' nonsense?

For shame, and more shame on his editor for letting this drivel get posted.

This isn't to call you out in particular or anything and I totally support people disagreeing with the tone, content and/or candor of an article; however I don't think I can agree with a call to not publish articles that may be provocative or espouse an opinion that may be in opposition of the majority of the viewership.

I believer Kyle and his editor would be doing all Arsians a great disservice if they only wrote articles that support their audiences opinions, and frankly sometimes an audience may need to be called out and using extreme language is an excellent rhetorical tool to "hold up the mirror" so to speak.

Gaming companies know that on-disc DLC raises consumers' ire. That should be blatantly obvious by now. So the real question here is: why do they still try to get away with it? Is the small saving in bandwidth costs really worth all the anger this produces?

Whatever argument you might concoct regarding 'value propositions' the fact is that people want to know that when they've bought something they do actually own it in its entirety. The idea that the disk that you own contains some hidden encrypted content inaccessible to you may make sense in an abstract financial analysis, but it merely serves as a blatant reminder that these companies are scrambling to extract ever-increasing amounts from their consumers. Maybe the anger this raises isn't entirely rational, but so what? The anger is real and pervasive, and games companies need to accept that this is just not something that consumers want to see.

Well said! "Don't like it? Don't buy it!" That's what I normally do, too. I've got no grievances against DLC since it's purely optional. It's not something you need to buy in order to remain competitive in a game, but if it is, then the developers have made a poor choice. I felt a bit cheated by the original Dragon Age since I went along and bought the DLC. They eventually released the whole thing, including expansion and all DLC, as a Game of the Year edition - for less than the price of the game when it first came out. That's going to be my stand for all single player games for now, wait at least a year until I buy it.

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

Read the Mythical Man Month, then get back to us. It doesn't mean anything of the sort. Software development has severe communication bottlenecks (amongst other things), such that sometimes, adding more staff to an existing project will make the project take more time, not less. Assigning those staff to a different project, such as DLC, allows increased productivity without exacerbating the communication problem.

Moreover, different staff members have different skills. If your art team has generated all the assets that the core game's developers can handle, it's hardly useful to get them to churn out even more assets. Get them to create new assets for DLC instead. That's precisely the point made by the diagram Kyle linked which shows how the stages overlap.

I remember, back in the old days of the NES, SNES, and Playstation, using Game Genie/Game Shark codes to unlock content that was locked off (though in those days, it was usually because it was unfinished, not because the publisher wanted to nickel and dime you more). I wonder, if I did that with a modern game that had on-disc DLC, would that make me a pirate?

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works. Today's major games are massive undertakings, created by teams of dozens or sometimes hundreds of people juggling lots of different tasks. Just because that bit of DLC was ready in time to be included on the final, shipped disc doesn't mean that creating that content was a meaningful distraction from developing the main game.

Um, no. It still means they assigned people to DLC when they could've been working on some portion of the main content.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

More people on a given piece of a project doesn't mean that piece will go any faster, or with higher quality. You get diminishing returns in that aspect. Eventually you get too many fingers in the same pie and it's just a sticky mess where nothing is getting done.

Plus you have the issue of: should level and character designers be fixing bugs in the code? Should engineers be creating character art? What if the game content is done, but the developers are stuck fixing code bugs in order to ship the game for a month or so (final fit and finish)? What do all the content folks do? Sit and wait?

People in a project that large are not swappable pieces, and you can't assume that I can substitute any one individual for another.

This.

Just because I work in IT doesn't mean I'll know how to fix your specific program running on an install of 32 bit Vista*. I maintain an AS400 system along with some secondary junk while using Macs for most of my computer duties. Some of the graphic designers or concept artists might know how to work with some extra code, but they wouldn't be proficient enough to really add to the code monkeys' work.

*I probably would know how, but shame on you for assuming, and shame again for using Vista.

The issue with on-disc DLC is that it is NOT DLC, it is paywalled content on the disc, which should be part of the base game itself instead of taking up space on a limited medium that could otherwise have made the base game even better, but instead the publisher want to nickle and dime us for content that is part of the base game but is encrypted and separated.

On-disc DLC is almost pure profit, they don't have to host the DLC file on a remote server and pay for bandwidth, instead they just send over a small 6KB encryption key that the console can use to decrypt the game files. This is a dirty and anti-consumer tactic, and no amount of reasoning will change it.

Its not about us being entitled to free stuff, I'll pay for DLC when it comes out, but when the DLC is not really DLC, that's when we don't like being played for fools and we get mad.

Regardless of whether the extra content sits on a disc or on a server somewhere, the developer obviously didn't intend for it to be included in the base price that you paid for the retail disc. Just because you physically "own" the encrypted files that represent the content doesn't give you any more legal or moral right to play it than someone who downloaded a pirated copy of the game.

It seems to me that the concept of "ownership" of information (and by implication, monetary value of information) is just incredibly problematic. I'm not sure I even have more of a point to make than that...

IMO, if it shipped "on the disc", it was something that was paid for with the budget of the initial development, which itself was covered by the price of admission when I bought the game.

Anything else is just an attempt to double charge me for "main game" content.

The initial argument from developers about "Day 1 DLC" was that it was content that wasn't quite finished when the masters went gold, and they had continued working on it after the code had shipped. This always struck me as an iffy justification, but was at least plausible. "On disc DLC" is nothing short of a money grab.

I don't see how it can be rationally argued that content that was ready to go alongside the "main" content the moment it all shipped for production wasn't simply "main" content that was excised from the overall work to be further monetized because they got greedy.

Regardless of whether the extra content sits on a disc or on a server somewhere, the developer obviously didn't intend for it to be included in the base price that you paid for the retail disc. Just because you physically "own" the encrypted files that represent the content doesn't give you any more legal or moral right to play it than someone who downloaded a pirated copy of the game.

It seems to me that the concept of "ownership" of information (and by implication, monetary value of information) is just incredibly problematic. I'm not sure I even have more of a point to make than that...

This is the root of the problem. The fact that we "buy" and "own" things that are increasingly ephemeral, and we are struggling to define what, exactly, we own when we buy something.

Mr. Kyle Orland, is Ars seriously paying you to troll your audience like this? Are you seriously getting paid to insult and demean your readers? Do you really expect us to swallow this sort of passive-aggressive 'people who have a problem with on-disc dlc are just whiners' nonsense?

For shame, and more shame on his editor for letting this drivel get posted.

You missed a major reason for on disc DLC, You only have to go through format/qa once instead of 2x like you do with a seperate DLC. This saves a ton of time and headache for the developers and the testing groups.

It's a decent argument, but it relies on a reductive view of the way game development actually works.

More importantly, its a old style view of software development in general. Most devs are working on several projects simultaniously. In a large project like a major game release, a dev may own several areas, and usually they have assigned units of time based on estimates to complete each task. Development cycles are broken down into "sprints" typically of two weeks in length. If a dev is blocked completely, often they will 'trade' time on one aspect that is blocked for time on something unrelated that can be done now(and in return, later give the time allocated to the original project). Its called Agile development and over the past decade its slowly become the standard approach.

Furthermore, by shipping the dev content on the disc, it permits the developer to push the QA of that content out to a later date, especially since QA signoff is often the last part of a project release. So while the dev's are twiddling thier thumbs waiting on QA to punt bugs their way or sign off, they can instead be working on post-release content which will not get into the QA cycle, but they can then spend the next month after release putting through QA. That 'small patch' that 'enables' the content is likely to also contain tweaks and fixes for any problems later identified in the untested content.

In other words, most of this is about efficient use of scheduling and dev resources. We don't do the Waterfall model in development anymore, and that is a good thing, but it can also lead to a misunderstanding of how software is being developed since Agile is not a sequential methodology.

Good article. And for the detractors, note that Kyle did *not* claim that DLC content is always worth the money, or that games that do not deliver the value of the initial purchase price are justified. Only that DLC is not always what it appears and despite the speed at which it comes out post release, or the location of many of the assets that does not mean it in some way took away from the initial game development. If it did, I'd seriously question the dev manager and how they were allocating cycles.

Kyle - It might be helpful to at some point see if Ars could run a series of articles on software development, and the change from Waterfall to Agile development models.

The problem is not the DLC, but rather the frustration at the extreme cost of the game itself.If I buy a game for $60 (which is by itself, outragous) but if I pay that amount for a game I expect to get the ENTIRE FRIGGEN GAME. Not parts of the game.

DLC is fine for add-ons after a game has been out for a while and you want to expand it a bit. But that's it.

If you bought a music cd and were asked to pay again for the last two tracks, would anyone deny that was customer-hostile bullshit? When people buy a disc, the assumption is they are going to receive the content on it - finding out later they only get a portion of what they were told they were paying for is highly dishonest.

The thing about op-eds is that you have to know how to pick your battles. The idea is to intelligently make a reasonable argument to broaden our perspective on an issue, and to do so in a manner which doesn't insult your reader. In that regard, this article fails on every single count.

Agreed. People continue to buy these games, and buying is the strongest approval you can get of how a company is operating. If you think a game is only worth $30 because the $10 DLC should be in the game, /wait until the game price comes down to $30/.

That's what I do (making sure the publisher knows). They're shooting themselves in the foot.

Revelations: Planned to be a day one buy. With DLC plans, didn't bother. Got it for $10, won't be bothering with the DLC.

Saint's Row 3: Planned to be a day one buy. Then came "40 weeks of DLC". Will probably get the complete version when it hits $30 or less.